U.S. Government Targets “Homegrown Violent Extremists” In Broad Surveillance

By Aaron Kesel

The U.S. government has increased its physical and digital surveillance to now include a broad definition of “homegrown violent extremists” in the Department of Defense’s manual which isn’t clearly defined, Reuters reported.

The change actually happened last year, announced under the Obama administration but carries on to the Trump administration. This will allow some forms of monitoring of U.S. persons without a court-issued warrant, a blatant violation of the Fourth Amendment.

The Fourth Amendment is defined as:

“The Fourth Amendment originally enforced the notion that “each man’s home is his castle”, secure from unreasonable searches and seizures of property by the government.  It protects against arbitrary arrests, and is the basis of the law regarding search warrantsstop-and-frisk, safety inspections, wiretaps, and other forms of surveillance, as well as being central to many other criminal law topics and to privacy law,” according to Cornell Law School.

The new manual permits the collection of information about Americans for counterintelligence purposes “when no specific connection to foreign terrorist(s) has been established,” according to training slides created last year by the Air Force Office of Special Investigations (AFOSI).

This raises particular legal concerns that the feds will use this mandate to skirt laws that protect citizens.

“The government’s authority to monitor people doesn’t depend on their beliefs, or what the government thinks they believe, but on specific evidence that gives sufficient reason to think a criminal offense is occurring or that the person is an agent of a foreign power,” Sarah St.Vincent said. “A secret determination that someone’s rights should be curtailed based on undisclosed criteria is incompatible with the rule of law. The government should explain what it’s doing as well as its legal basis for doing it.”

All this was made possible by executive order 12333, signed by former President Ronald Reagan in 1981 and later modified by former President George W. Bush, which establishes how U.S. intelligence agencies like the CIA and NSA are allowed to pursue foreign intelligence investigations. The order also allows surveillance of U.S. citizens in certain cases which are defined as a counter-intelligence operations.

Which again in itself is a very broad definition first published and defined in 1982, the U.S. government was required to demonstrate a target was working on behalf of the goals of a foreign power or terrorist group. With the Obama era’s DHS definition of a terrorist group this is even more unclear.

Obama’s DHS didn’t hesitate to call those who believe in conspiracy theories potential right-wing terrorists, stating the following points might make someone a terrorist in a study by the University of Maryland, which was funded in part by the Department of Homeland Security.

  • Americans who “are fiercely nationalistic, as opposed to universal and international in orientation”
  • Americans considering themselves “anti-global”
  • Americans who are “suspicious of centralized federal authority”
  • Americans who are “reverent of individual liberty (especially their right to own guns and be free of taxes)”
  • Americans exhibiting a belief in “conspiracy theories that involve grave threat to national sovereignty and/or personal liberty and a belief that one’s personal and/or national way of life is under attack”

Specifically listing Americans who love liberty as terrorists, noting that two subgroups of “right-wing extremism” were identified as “gun rights” and “tax protest,” according to PJ Media.

The slides were acquired by Human Rights Watch through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request about the use of federal surveillance laws for countering drug or immigration purposes.

“What happens under 12333 takes place under a cloak of darkness,” Sarah St. Vincent, a surveillance researcher with Human Rights Watch told Reuters. “We have enormous programs potentially affecting people in the United States and abroad, and we would never know about these changes without the documents.”

The slides also list recent shooting attacks including San Bernardino, California, in December 2015 and Orlando, Florida, in June 2016 as examples that would classify individuals as a “homegrown violent extremist.”

Documents revealed by the former NSA contractor Edward Snowden beginning in 2013 indicated that the government used/uses EO 12333 as the basis for collecting bulk communications surveillance programs overseas.

Meanwhile, as we reported last week, the acting U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Elaine Duke has called on Silicon Valley to remove extremist content that may cause “homegrown violent extremists.”

This comes amid calls for renewal of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) which the EFF is fighting against to declare Section 702 of the surveillance unconstitutional, while Congress is proposing another new bipartisan law called the USA Rights Act seeking to close a legal loophole to conduct warrantless surveillance on American citizens, Tech Crunch reported.

The USA Rights Act will permanently end the “about” collection. It also puts an end to the “backdoor searches” on Americans, and it will increase oversight for surveillance programs.

“The American people deserve better from their own government than to have their internet activity swept up in warrantless, unlimited searches that ignore the Fourth Amendment,” Sen. Rand Paul said. “Our bill institutes major reforms that prove we can still protect our country while respecting our Constitution and upholding fundamental civil liberties.”

Additionally, this news comes as a letter was just written to Attorney General Jeff Sessions asking if the USA PATRIOT Act and Pipeline Safety Act contain enough provisions to criminalize actions against “energy infrastructure at the federal level” by environmentalist groups labeling them “terrorists” which could be seen as “homegrown violent extremists.”

So will this new mandate allow the U.S. government and the Trump administration to surveil activists using their First Amendment right to assemble and protest? This again leads us to ask the question, “how will Trump’s administration compare to his predecessor?” Only time will tell.

For further information, you can view all the newly released documents on the Human Rights Watch website.

Aaron Kesel writes for Activist Post and is Director of Content for Coinivore. Follow Aaron at Twitter and Steemit.

This article is Creative Commons and can be republished in full with attribution. Like Activist Post on Facebook, subscribe on YouTube, follow on Twitter and at Steemit.

Image Credit

Activist Post Daily Newsletter

Subscription is FREE and CONFIDENTIAL
Free Report: How To Survive The Job Automation Apocalypse with subscription

47 Comments on "U.S. Government Targets “Homegrown Violent Extremists” In Broad Surveillance"

  1. um, they trashed the bill of rights years ago, replaced em with the right to have an abortion, and the right to die with dignity. Oh, if your opposed to this utter nonsense, yer a terrorist.
    Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord, I will repay…

    • Religion is the excuse the weak give for their own cowardice and inaction.

      • Wow are you ever misguided.

        • I like the way you ignored what this was a response to. Some coward claiming to do nothing and let god do it instead. But no, all you do is look at the fact that I put god in there. Obviously, you are too ignorant for anyone to take seriously. So, you think we should all just take it up the keester and let god take care of it? That’s a recipe for just taking even more of it up the keester. What a loser.

          • Free Man (NOT) | October 27, 2017 at 10:45 pm |

            He helps those who help themselves.
            I think this is the point you are trying to get across.

          • Jim Lunsford | October 28, 2017 at 5:16 am |

            I am not trying to say that. I have said that in another comment, but this is an expansion of that comment which demonstrates the why people don’t help themselves. Hint: it’s because they are weak and cowardly and wish to place themselves upon a higher pedestal without doing what is necessary to actually be on that pedestal. They always try and make their cowardice and weakness appear superior to their actual betters. No; I am not saying I am anyone’s better, though in this case, I have certainly walked further down that path than some coward who is too weak to take even the first step down it.

          • Patrick Wise | October 28, 2017 at 9:59 pm |

            Thanks for confirming the biblical world view. You’re making moral judgements,
            which if God doesn’t exist, morality cannot exists either. According to the Rich rulers
            of the planet, it’s perfectly moral to use genocide to remedy “overpopulation”. If there
            is no God, why is what they are doing wrong? Also, who decides what is moral or immoral? The
            unbelievers will never get it, but the huge irony is that all atheists will get that old timey religion
            when the world dictator come onto the world stage. Most will choose to worship the beast and keep their
            head. We shall see…

          • “You’re making moral judgements, which if God doesn’t exist, morality cannot exists either.”

            I’ll take some exception to that statement. I’ve a few articles you might consider reading over which may help you see that your statement may need some revision. I apologize if this seems confrontational. I’m not intending it as such but merely as a means to foster understanding better, at least that’s my hope. 🙂

            “Not from anyone’s holy scripture”

            “I Believe – – morality (Part 1)” This essay has three parts and is linked for reading.

            “Human Morality: compassion”

            My point here is even apathetic agnostics can be moral. Do I think an entity exists which created it all? I can only honestly say I don’t know. I honestly don’t care either. These do not exclude me from acting, living a moral and ethical life. I do, or at least I try very hard to do so. Do I think a reward awaits me after death? No, not really. Do I need a reward to act “good”? No.

            That’s the understanding many of the Faith seem to lack. Some of us have no need of gods, goddesses and such to do the right thing. I’ll give a you a little secret, if you have Love, you don’t need to find the Holy Grail. 😉 🙂

          • Jim Lunsford | October 29, 2017 at 12:16 pm |

            I am not religious. Religions are for slaves.

    • I missed the part in the Bill of Rights that bans abortions. If you shoot a doctor who performs abortions, you are a terrorist; clearly, you have not been arrested tho you believe abortion is unconstitutional. How brave of you to let them know where to get you. Vengence is for pricks.

  2. I went thru the study cited and didn’t find terrorism defined in any way by ideology, tho it mentions both left and right extremist positions as possible motivations. Here is what they say: “Current articles and postings on the Internet have mischaracterized the
    conclusions of the START report “Hot Spots of Terrorism and Other Crimes in the United
    States, 1970 to 2008,” which was released in January. To be clear, the National Consortium
    for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START) does not classify
    individuals as terrorists or extremists based on ideological perspectives. START and the
    Global Terrorism Database, on which the Report is based, defines terrorism and terrorist attacks
    as “the threatened or actual use of illegal force and violence by a non-state actor to attain a
    political, economic, religious, or social goal through fear, coercion, or intimidation.”
    The report is based on the key premise that the groups and individuals analyzed have actually
    carried out or attempted to carry out violent attacks in the United States for any political, social,
    religious, or economic goal. This is what qualifies them as terrorists, not their ideological
    orientation. ”

    The interest in ideology is not about depicting a terrorist but in seeking motivation. The key defintiion of a terrorist is someone who threatens or uses violence to attain political/economic/religious/social goals.

    It refers to non-state actors, and I can accept that while also recognizing that the greatest acts of terrorism come from state actors, such as the criminal wars in Vietnam, Iraq, Syria, Libya, which have killed millions of innocents, as well as the most recent slaughter of 40,000 women, children, and other civilians in Mosel, where Trumpi is bombing neighborhoods as part of his promise to “bomb the shit out of ISIS.”

    • Yet another fool who believes that the dump is our savior. The only way he could win was by having the most hated person in politics run against him. He is doing the same things as his predecessors. Which is destroying what little remains of the supposed bill of rights. And the ignorant masses of slaves are cheering the destruction of these rights. What a fool. Hardly surprising though as you have proven yourself to be one of the most ignorant people in these comment sections time after time after time. Still renting out those cardboard boxes to homeless people?

      • Are you calling me a fool? I despise Trump and even got banned at opednews for being too critical of him. You completely misunderstood my comment, which is sad because I agree with you. Are are you referring to someone else? Your comment is not at all clear, tho it seems to be directed at me, a radical anti-Trump, anti-Clinton independent.

        You see to eager to argue, my friend. You have confused me.

        • I don’t have to call you a fool. You do that well enough on your own. I don’t read your bs because I have run into your ignorant @ss before. And we are not on the same side. I am a true anarchist and accept no masters. You? A pathetic slave who has their opinions fed to them.

          • When you insult, you default to losing, since you prevent persuasion.

            I have been a genuine anarchist for over 55 years. Anarchism means democracy and working with others. I am hardly a slave. I have been independent 55 years, deepening my understanding of the commuitarian tradition of anarchism. Infantile “anarchists” have a shallow understanding.

            I am 76, have no master, am currently living in Barcelona, the home of anarchism and joining the movement for independence. What are you doing other than getting off on insults? I have also written 200 articles in the last year with an anarchist/democratic underpinning. with half a million readers at opednews.com and quora. Besides boasting that you are a “true anarchist,” what have you done to advance the movement other than to insult people with over 50 years of exeperience and study?

            You are the kind of person who confirms the bias of those who think anarchists are just unruly assholes. I urge you give up your hubris and stop making as ass of yourself by trading insults. If you are truly interested in anarchism, I urge you to study the experiment in self-government during the Spanish Civil War and understand that when you insult people, you put them down, which is a betrayal of anarchist radical equality. If you are sincere, you must reform your ways and learn to listen. Anarchism is a philosophy based on respect for all, which for me includes all living creatures so that a vegan lifestyle, along with activism, is part of my life.

            i have lived anarchism for 55 years and continue to study its roots. When you alienate your fellow anarchists, you destroy the movement.

          • Jim Lunsford | October 29, 2017 at 12:20 pm |

            You think you can define anarchism,, as if you are a keeper of knowledge. You are not. You are a fool. I resort to mockery because that is all you deserve. You type long ignorant rants because you don’t understand that intelligent people can say far more, and with less boring bs, in a concise statement. Again, a delusional fool. Libertarian socialist. What a joke. Free slaves. That’s what that means. You were never a true anarchist. A true anarchist knows that they cannot define another’s type of anarchial belief. It is self-rule. Something you aren’t man enough to handle. Why? Because you are a slave.

          • When you have studied something for over t0 years and lived it, yes you know what is is. I forgive your rudeness. Take care, friend.

          • Jim Lunsford | October 29, 2017 at 12:43 pm |

            I have lived it my entire life. Rudeness? Yes. I am always rude to fools. You don’t even know what anarchy is if you think you can pigeon-hole it into YOUR narrow views. There are friendly ones, violent ones, stupid communist ones (they are truly delusional with no understanding of economics. As is the case with all socialists), capitalist ones, crypto ones, tech ones, the list is endless. But they must all be shoved into a narrow belief system so that your limited brain can understand it. You define ignorance. And how can any anarchist ever lower themselves to voting? Once you’ve truly understood freedom, you could never lower yourself to insisting on your servitude by legitimizing the fraud of voting yourself into servitude. Your hypocrisy defines you.

          • Doubling down on the logical fallacy and personal rudeness of engaging in insults
            is a strike out in rational and civil discourse.
            True anarchists do not engage in logical fallacies or trade in insults.

            You argue irrationally, after calling me a fool, that I am calling myself a fool so you don’t have to. That is a sad response, my friend.

          • Jim Lunsford | October 28, 2017 at 4:36 pm |

            I haven’t called you a fool. You do that well enough on your own. Which you can check if you can read properly. In other words, you are the same as you were the last time I encountered you. I realize you probably don’t have the mental capacity to remember, but it was a prolonged bit of stupidity on your part. And as to what a true anarchist is, you should educate yourself on what that is. I have no ruler, which you are attempting to set yourself up as over me. Making up YOUR rules for others to follow is a statist tactic. You are so completely ignorant as to what your own words mean that it makes a truly rational person’s brain vomit. You ran away last time, not because of my rudeness, but because so many caught on to your ignorance and you were laughed out of the discussion. One in which you were backing the statist argument of killing terrorists. And no, you didn’t know then (or probably now) that we created them. Talk about your logical fallacies. How are those cardboard boxes you call real estate working out?

          • Jim Lunsford dale ruff • 13 hours ago
            Yet another fool who believes that the dump is our savior. ”

            “don’t have the mental capacity….stupidity…completely ignorant…..brain vomit….ignorance laught out ….”

            I do not run away, I have no desire to rule you or anyone. I urge you to deepen your knowledge of anarchism and learn how to conduct civil discourse. A tirade of insults is not anarchism but immature hubris.

            I also urge you to read the over 200 articles I published in the last year at opednews and quora, with over 400,000 readers and thousands of upvotes to understand that your insults are off target and only reflect on yourself.

            I have been a libertarian socialist for 50 years, fighting wars, marching for civil rights, and now writing to promote a 3d way between state socialism/capitalism and right winger libertarian capitalism, in the form of the original anarchist theory of libertarian socialism. I urge you to study the roots of this worldwide movement, its success in many nations, and start to make friends with your fellow anarchists instead of being rude and intolerant.

            I don’t’ understand your last sentence at all. I am currently in Barcelona, the home of anarchism joining in the independence movement. Your crude insults just do’t touch me, as I am engaged with others in a real democratic/anarchist movement to liberate Catalonia from the Spanish oppressive state.

            What are you doing to show you are a committed anarchist other than spewing out hate speech?

            Anarchists operate out of love, not hatred, my friend, for they recognize the equal value of all individuals and the wisdom of collective co-operation. That is why they oppose both capitalism and undemocratic states.

            I urge you to detoxify yourself. I have proposed no rules other than understanding and compassion to bind us and resistance to evil to liberate us. I accept equality, no hierarchy, and the value of all living beings and I live by those rules. You are free to accept or reject them.

            In fact, I invite you to come to Barcelona and participate in democratic anarchy with me.

          • Jim Lunsford | October 28, 2017 at 7:03 pm |

            Slaves like you think they make the rules for free people. Your rules don’t rule me. Just because you think something works one way, doesn’t make it so. Like I said, don’t call me friend; I am your enemy. I despise your ignorance. Your slavish devotion to terrorism. Your mindless rants of nothingness and borrowed words from others to attempt to give yourself some prop of intelligence because your own words only display your ignorance. Anarchy means self-rule. That means I rule myself. You don’t tell me how to live. You don’t tell me what my thoughts are. Just because you have always let others tell you what to think, doesn’t mean that I am a weak, pathetic thing like you. I am not. And don’t call me friend. I say that again because I think you are a disgusting excuse for a person. I say person because you are not a human being. That would take work. Something your words prove you are incapable of doing.

          • Jim Lunsford | October 29, 2017 at 12:17 pm |

            A libertrian socialist? That’s so hilarious! That’s like saying you belief in cognitive dissonance as a party. You are so hilariously idiotic! What a joke! You make my brain vomit with your stupidity.

  3. “…stating the following points might make someone a terrorist in a study by the
    University of Maryland, which was funded in part by the Department of
    Homeland Security.

    Americans who “are fiercely nationalistic, as opposed to universal and international in orientation”

    Americans considering themselves “anti-global”

    Americans who are “suspicious of centralized federal authority”

    Americans who are “reverent of individual liberty (especially their right to own guns and be free of taxes)”

    Americans exhibiting a belief in “conspiracy theories that
    involve grave threat to national sovereignty and/or personal liberty and
    a belief that one’s personal and/or national way of life is under

    If you alter the wording a little, who DOESN’T this apply to??? Thank God for Human Rights Watch and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) I assume that they are also considered terrorists??

    • “Americans considering themselves “anti-global”
      Americans who are “suspicious of centralized federal authority”
      Americans who are “reverent of individual liberty (especially their right to own guns and be free of taxes)””

      Well, I do not care for globalism as it is being pushed by the 1%. I do like the People, common folk coming together globally in peace and equanimity. But when you add in tyranny & oppression by any means inclusive of economics, that’s where I’ll part ways.

      Centralized Federal authority is granted by whom, again? Oh yeah that’s right, we the People grant them that authority, we pay their checks. Are they sincerely and genuinely acting in our best interest all the time? From what I can gather, they are not & they cover that up with lies. They done so at least three different times that I’m aware of concerning using offensive military force on their own People who were taking a stand for labor against capital. Trust them? No thanks.

      Yes, the tenth amendment does grant me the right of sovereignty if I so choose it. That is my individual liberty & it is not to be taken away. I served in the military briefly, this is one ideal that I served to protect not only for myself but also for anyone living in America. I still will do that, it was my pledged oath. Failing to do so is destruction of my honor. I do not apologize for being honorable, having individual human dignity.

      Two wrongs can never make a right. Torture does not work. More debt to pay debt is a fallacy given to fools. Usury is a weapon made from an idea. It is an idea long due to meet its demise.

      *chuckling & grinning*

      Reckon that marks me out as a “home grown terrorist”. *shaking my head and sighing* Fine, just recall they asked for that and incurred it of their own. Sure, I’ll be their boogeyman. Bad enough I got so much to do as a house husband. *LOL*

      • I still stand by the observation that the legislation is broad enough to include virtually every American. I can only conclude that that was by design.

  4. Best I can tell, the only “domestic violent extremists” in the US are fed-gov and state-govs.

    This vertically integrated monstrosity has false-flagged us in the Gulf of Tonkin, the USS Liberty and 9/11 …. at a minimum. And ever since 9/11, they have been running around committing domestic and international terrorism, endless illegal wars, murdering non-combatant men/women/children, systemically destroying our liberties while overwhelming us with propaganda. Hells Bells — the police have told us that we even had a “president” that was using false identity documents.

    There is no way, none, this federal political machine can claim to be the legitimate ruling body of this nation.

    • When people vote, they become terrorists. Simply by validating the fraud of the powers that cower, endorsing their promises to use force against those who do not practice the same group-think, they are supporting terrorists and so are just as guilty.

      • When people don’t vote, they benefit the least supported party, and in the US, that means the far right of the Republicans.

        I voted for Stein….hardly making me a terrorist. If I were a Republican, I would continue to suppress the vote, eiher with fraudulent purge lists, voiter suppression laws, or by telling people voting is meaningless or evil,,,,and promoting voluntary suppression. The Republican right loves you!

        Those who voted for Clinton as the lesser evil did so to prevent the greater evil from prevailing.

        “All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.” Edmund Burke

        Voter=terrorist makes my vote for Dr. Stein morally equivalent to bombing a subway station.

        I think not, friend. In choosing not to vote, you benefit the greater terrorist and thus are complicit.

        • Like I said, I don’t need to call you a fool; your words do it for me. Congratulations on proving you are nothing but a sheeple who legitimizes fraud and terrorism. I like the way you try and make yourself look intelligent by quoting others. Of course, you can’t do this with your own original thoughts. Not that you have any original thoughts. All of yours are given to you by the state. And you think you are an authority on anything besides being an idiot. Do you really believe that B.S. you spout? You think that the C#nt was a lesser evil? And don’t call me your friend; I think you should remove yourself from the land of the living.

          • I didn’t say she was a lesser evil; I said “Those who voted for Clinton as the lesser evil did so to prevent the greater evil from prevailing.” That was their perception. I voted for Sanders, then Dr. Stein.

            You really have turned ugly. I call you friend because as an anarchist, I live by the Golden rule, treating others as I wish to be treated. As an anarchist, I see all living creatures as kin and treat all as friends. It is your choice to reciprocate or not. I treat you as a friend, and you have no right to tell me how to conduct myself…for that would violate anarchist principles of liberty.

            I forgive you your hate speech, my friend.

          • Jim Lunsford | October 29, 2017 at 12:15 pm |

            I guess you think you have found a way to get under my skin with the friend thing. It doesn’t. You know that you hate me. I am more honest with my hate. I despise your ignorance. You have proven several times already that you are a fool with your own words. One of the most ignorant kind. You claim to be my master by telling me how I should interpret my politics. As if you know what anarchy is. You don’t. You are simply another gutless fool. I say gutless because your ignorance is glaringly obvious every time you write. You have no original thoughts. All are given to you by your owners. I say owners, because you statists are so insistent on being slaves. You are foolish enough to think your owners will allow you to vote yourself into freedom. How hilarious! You have enslaved yourself with your beliefs. No one can enslave a free person. But a slave can never be free. That is your well-deserved curse. Eternal servitude to the whip. And why do you insist on your own enslavement? Because you hold out hope that your new master will exact your petty hateful vengeance and fake morality upon others who do not share your beliefs. Because you are not man enough to stand up for yourself, that is why you insist on having a master. Because you are not a man yourself.

          • I read the first few words and stop! Truly, I am not here for trolling, ego, or personal but for good discussion. I wish you well.

          • Jim Lunsford | October 29, 2017 at 12:39 pm |

            I don’t really care. This didn’t start here. I don’t care what you want. Why? Because I’ve run into your ignorant @ss before. You are still a condescending fool, and I just want you to know that I despise you. Live your life of cognitive dissonance, but not around me.

          • Jim, if you didn’t care, you would take my good wishes to heart and drop the angry outbursts. Take care. Without it, we are brutes.

          • Jim Lunsford | October 29, 2017 at 1:10 pm |

            What I don’t care about is what you want. I guess I should have taken your inability to read properly into account.

          • Jim Lunsford | October 29, 2017 at 6:03 pm |

            Funny how you are now claiming the moral high ground when you began this particular fight. And now claiming victim status. What a puss.

  5. …..a broad definition of “homegrown violent extremists”….. which is YOU !
    For the State everyone is “potential” violent extremist !

  6. Three Types of Conquest

    History reveals nations can be conquered by the use of one or more of three methods.

    1. The most common is conquest by war. In time, though, this method usually fails, because the captives hate the captors and rise up and drive them out if they can. Much force is needed to maintain control, making it expensive for the conqueror.

    2. Another method is by religion, where men are convinced they must give their captors part of their earnings as “obedience to God.” Such a captivity is vulnerable to philosophical exposure or by overthrow by armed force, since religion by its nature lacks military force to regain control, once its captives become disillusioned.

    3. The third method can be called economic conquest. It takes place when nations are placed under “tribute” without the use of visible force or coercion, so that the victims do not realize they have been conquered. “Tribute” is collected from them in the form of “legal” debts and taxes, and they believe they are paying it for their own good, for the good of others, or to protect all from some enemy. Their captors become their “benefactors” and “protectors”.

    Although this is the slowest to impose. It is often quite long lasting, as the captives do not see any military force arrayed against them, their religion is left more or less intact, they have freedom to speak and travel, and they participate in “elections” for their rulers. Without realizing it, they are conquered, and the instruments of their own society are used to transfer their wealth to their captors and make the conquest complete.

    • How can you leave out (((COUNTERFEITING THE CURRENCY)))? Without financing, the 3 things you mention can not survive on merit… assuming they can even get off the ground.

      • Actually, the most effective method is to get the people to police themselves. That is the essence of political correctness. Started by Mao. Continued by liberals everywhere. Especially antifa (aka real nazis). When people become afraid to speak out, then tyranny is maintained by the people themselves.

        • Jim. How can any of that take place without financing?… including Mao’s “revolution”. FOLLOW THE (((MONEY))) TRAIL.

          • Jim Lunsford | October 29, 2017 at 6:16 pm |

            Economics was already mentioned in the first post. Mine wasn’t really on conquest, it was about once it was occupied for whatever reason. I’d say it was the consolidation of power. But taking a place is a lot easier than keeping it.

      • It’s part of the third method.

  7. Is it not yet time to employ the Deputiz’m Plan? How else do you plan on fighting this stuff? …at the ballot box, voting for republicans and democrats?

  8. I see. But ridding ourselves of illegals couldn’t possibly help, right?

Leave a comment